Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-19-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Dwayne Abramson
Case Number: 20-3429
Judge: Thomas L. Ambro
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Philadelphia, PA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with making false statements in connection with the acquisition of firearm charge.
Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) reflects the guidelines promulgated by
the Supreme Court in Anders to ensure indigent clients receive adequate and fair
representation. The rule allows trial counsel, if persuaded upon review of the trial court
record “that the appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit,” to file a motion to
withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to Anders, “which must be served upon the
appellant and the United States.” 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a). If we agree that the appeal is
without merit, we “will grant counsel’s Anders motion, and dispose of the appeal without
appointing new counsel.” Id. When considering an Anders motion, our inquiry is
twofold: “(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2)
whether an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” United
States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
In so doing, we ascertain whether counsel “thoroughly examined the record in search
of appealable issues,” id., and make sure nothing in the record “might arguably support
the appeal,” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. An appealable matter is considered frivolous when
1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and exercise
plenary review over legal conclusions and clear error for factual findings. See Simon v.
Gov’t of V.I., 679 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 2012).
3
“[none] of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.” Youla, 241 F.3d at 301
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). When counsel’s Anders brief
appears facially adequate, we use it to guide our independent review of the record. See
Youla, 241 F.3d at 301. Absent nonfrivolous, appealable issues, we will grant counsel’s
motion and affirm the District Court’s decision without appointing new counsel. 3d Cir.
L.A.R. 109.2(a).
Here, counsel conducted a thorough examination of the record, and his Anders brief
identifies no appealable issues of arguable merit. We concur, having conducted our own
independent review of the record. That review reflects that in April 2011 the District
Court sentenced Abramson to 108 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of
supervised release for making false statements in connection with the acquisition of
firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a). After serving his sentence, he began
supervised release in February 2018. In December 2019, the assigned Probation Officer
filed a petition to revoke that status, alleging that Abramson sold crack cocaine to a
confidential informant and was subsequently arrested by the Hanover Police Department.
He pled guilty to four charges of possession with intent to distribute controlled
substances in Pennsylvania state court. Represented by counsel before the District Court,
he pled guilty to violating the conditions of his supervised release.
In November 2020, the District Court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment—
within the range of the Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory maximum for the
underlying offense to which he pled, which is classified as a “Class C Felony.” 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e). In sentencing Abramson, the Court considered the sentencing factors
4
set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), emphasizing the seriousness of his most recent controlledsubstance distribution offense. The Court also denied Abramson’s request to allow his
sentence to run concurrently with his sentence in state court, instead deferring to the state
court whether the state and federal sentences should run concurrently. Abramson
appealed and his counsel filed an Anders motion seeking to withdraw representation.
Undeterred, Abramson filed a pro se brief in support of his appeal.
We conclude the District Court properly revoked Abramson’s sentence of supervision
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). There are no factual disputes to this matter, as Abramson
voluntarily pled guilty to violating the terms of his supervised release. The Court
adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a) when it sentenced him to
the statutory maximum of 24 months. And it was well within its discretion to decline
Abramson’s request for his federal and state sentences to run concurrently. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(a).
In addition to reviewing counsel’s Anders brief, we have considered all of
Abramson’s arguments in his pro se brief and conclude they are unavailing. He provides
no legal justification to support the request that his 24-month sentence be reduced or
changed to home confinement, nor does he explain how his state sentence for drug
distribution should bear on his federal sentence for violating the terms of his supervised
release. He also fails to provide any detailed explanation as to his potential health
complications or how the District Court proceedings were prejudiced against him.
Because counsel fulfilled his duties under Anders and we also perceive no appealable
5
issues of arguable merit.
Outcome: We will grant counsel’s Anders motion and will affirm the
judgment of the District Court
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: